VALE BIDS TO LIFT DEVELOPMENT BAN ON PENARTH FARMLAND

The David Wilson Homes development site is on former "Green Wedge" land adjacent to St Joseph's School

The David Wilson Homes development site is on former “Green Wedge” land adjacent to St Joseph’s School – but a restrictive covenant imposed by the old South Glamorgan County Council forbids its use for housing. The Vale Council is seeking to overturn this.

The Labour-controlled Vale of Glamorgan Council is attempting to remove legal restrictions made by the old South Glamorgan Council which forbid housing development on  land adjacent to St Joseph’s School, Penarth. 

A restrictive covenant – a legal instrument –  applies to the plot of 5.89 acres and dictates that the now privately-owned land can only be used for agriculture of as a  public open space.

The David Wilson Homes site is adjacent to St Joseph's School on Sully Road, Penarth

The yet-to-be-developed David Wilson Homes site is adjacent to St Joseph’s School on Sully Road, Penarth. This is a plan of the site showing the concentration of homes on the plot.

This is the same plot of land – leading off the narrow and winding Sully Road – for which David Wilson Homes last September received full planning permission to build 74 homes. [ David Wilson Homes was a part of Wilson Bowden Properties but in 2007 was sold for £2.2 billion to Barratt Developments PLC – of which it is now just a brand].The deal is subject only to pending agreement on how much Section 106 money the developers will have to pay to the Vale Council.

However, the project can’t go ahead until the defunct South Glamorgan Council’s restrictive covenant on the land – which is still valid – is removed. The far-sighted South Glamorgan Council, which originally owned the land, wanted the area to remain undeveloped rural farmland and would never have sold it without imposing a condition prohibiting such development on the buyer.

Now the Labour-controlled Vale of Glamorgan Council wants to ditch the legal protection which the land had been given by the South Glamorgan Council

The Vale of Glamorgan Council says “officers within Learning and Skills and the Estates Department are of the opinion that the restrictive covenant is no longer of benefit to the Council”.  It appears that no one has consulted local people whether they agree to the removal of the restrictive covenant – which was placed on the land to protect their interests by South Glamorgan Council.

The development of the site will add 74 homes to the 350 Taylor Wimpey homes given outline permission at Cog Road at the Sully end of congested Sully road with another potential 150 to be added .

Sully also faces the prospect of an additional 200 homes being built on the grounds of  what’s known as the BP Club which would bring the total of new homes to a total of 774 – thus adding considerably to the traffic congestion in Penarth and the pressure on Penarth schools .

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address dmj@newsnet.uk . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to VALE BIDS TO LIFT DEVELOPMENT BAN ON PENARTH FARMLAND

  1. AJ says:

    The Sully community have fought very hard to stop these developments, but it seems the Vale Council is once again as “crooked” as ever!
    Sully will no longer be a village, the estate agents will do well in the next few months as people will move before their house price rapidly descends!

  2. Andrew sarchus says:

    “The Vale of Glamorgan Council says “officers within Learning and Skills and the Estates Department are of the opinion that the restrictive covenant is no longer of benefit to the Council”. “THE Council” damned jumped up philistines! should read “learning difficulties” not skills. I really do detest this bunch.

  3. David Moorcraft says:

    I do under stand that the Vale Council is under pressure (from the WAG) to provide more housing, but with these houses planned along Cog Road, plus houses on part of the old BP Sports ground (!) AND the houses potentially to be built off Lavernock Road opposite Cosmeston Park, ALL of which will generate more than one car each, has the Council really looked at the traffic jams which already choke Windsor and Redlands Roads in Penarth; Cardiff Road and many others through Dinas Powys ?
    Not to mention the infrastructure of schools and local services.

  4. Casl says:

    Will all these extra houses mean the schools and doctors surgeries will be expanding to accommodate the areas needs?

  5. Martin gossage says:

    This pretty disgracefully isn’t it? Vog “..you can’t build an extension it’s against the rules ” but then when suits ..” rules what rules” .why always in Sully? What is behind this? There’s surely lots of other sites for consideration in the whole of the vale .note the vale..that’s a pretty big area isn’t it?

  6. Tommy says:

    Funny now the councils are becoming more self funded, the section 106 requirements are being heavily enforced and once dead in the water projects are back on the table to boost revenues! How will the already dilapidated sully lanes cope with that extra traffic?

  7. Badger says:

    Vale of Glamorgan council!!!! the only hope we poor rate payers have got is the independent councillors, who do a fantastic job.
    The rest of them shouldn’t be trusted to “Run a Bath” unsupervised !!!!!!!!!!

  8. Christopher David says:

    Tommy, can you explain how 106 pushing prospective developments into closure, results in them coming back to the table to boost revenues please. I don’t see how this works. Thanks.

    • Martin gossage says:

      I can only think it means the cautious brinkmanship on both sides .developer wants to build ..vog ..it will cost you ..builder …we will think about it.. council goes ..whatever . Meanwhile council needs money and say target and knowing builder is desperate for the site .. says to builder ..wanna build or not ? Give us the money ! We have other plans if not .. Builder mmm we’d better then hadn’t we .
      Council ..phew that was close .

  9. Cymry Llundain says:

    It’s difficult to see how this development and the ones in Sully can be anything other than very bad news for the area. These latest applications don’t just put extra strain on roads and schools – they’re just plain inappropriate and unsafe. The disconnect between real people and local government is massive – it seems that Government on all levels is no more than a big “client” for the housing industry.

  10. AK says:

    Plenty of homes available – just owned by too few people.

    How many new developments are rental properties, snapped up by landlords who own multiple properties ?

  11. Christopher David says:

    Well the fact is AK that’s been brought about my market forces where house inflation due to our economic greed and growth model, has helped push house prices to ridiculous levels. Fact is if individuals can’t afford to purchase houses but landlords can, then landlords are providing a much needed service. However big change has come about. So lets see how the 3% extra stamp duty will help the homeless if small landlords and developers baulk at paying the extra tax. If your a big development company you don’t pay the extra duty. But if your a small developer just renovating a few much needed properties a year you have to pay. Generally whilst I appreciate your sentiments I’m not sure what the point is your making. “Plenty of homes available- just owned by too few people!” Can you explain please?

  12. If we read the PDN’s report carefully, it clearly says that “Officers” of the department – it does not say that “Councillors” have agreed. Quite a difference, and one should not blame every councillor for this, which is purely (and possibly political) viewpoint of “Officers”. It is quite true that Penarth Town Council has NOT been asked for its views on this slight “hold-up”, which obviously has come as a bit of a shock to a Labour council hell-bent on developing up to 10,000 + houses in the Vale – many of them in and around Penarth & Sully. South Glamorgan was quite right to ,impose the Condition- perhaps the general public will agree when this legal “nicety” comes to the crunch ?

    • Paul says:

      Councillor Ernest, perhaps you could explain to us poor tax payers why our political system allows so many tiers of government and costs so much when they can’t actually do much to stop things like this. It would seem from your reply that VOG didn’t even bother to ask your opinion, what message does that send? I’d add that the general public have made their voice pretty clear on their view about the overdevelopment in Penarth and Sully , perhaps you and your fellow councillors weren’t listening?

      • Ian Perry says:

        It’s our political system that allows such developments – the UK’s political parties operating in the interests of large businesses. The Welsh Government and local council are the servants of big business wanting to maximise short-term profits, and give little thought to the little voter.

        EU rules have prevented the UK government making the situation even worse, by delivering environmental protections – that many Westminster MP’s hate…

    • Kevin Mahoney says:

      Once again I think that it is worth highlighting the hypocrisy of one Anthony Ernest who when county councillor for Sully voted in favour of a draft LDP which allocated 650 new houses for the Cog Rd site.

      Has this man no shame? Or just a very selective memory?

    • Paul says:

      Robert, I assume that you’re happy for all the extra houses and cars then with no investment in infrastructure to support them? I assume you don’t mind wasting extra time sat in traffic so you can get to work or finding that your children can’t get a place in a school within walking distance of where you live but have to be driven miles away? Penarth at the moment is a reasonably vibrant little town, what’s wrong with trying to keep it that way?

  13. Rob says:

    If there is a possibility that this development will not get the go ahead why are the spending thousands on high voltage electric cable diversions and providing a BT connection to the site !!!
    These works have been on going over the last 6 months or more.

  14. Christopher David says:

    Thy must have crystal balls eh! Rbo. Dodgy?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s